PDA

View Full Version : Clayton says Law is still in play


ZootedGranny
07-03-2005, 09:14 AM
Courtesy a headsup from GA_Chief_KU and the Chiefscoalition board.

John Clayton was on ESPN Radio's the huddle, and said the following:

There are 4 teams still interested: Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami and Tampa Bay.

Of the 4, Jacksonville has the most cap room, with around 5.7 mil. The next closest is Kansas City with around 3.5, and Miami and Tampa are trying to grab him for the league minimum.

When the Chiefs signed Ashley Ambrose, they told him they are still persuing Law.

Sean Salisbury also said that Law is looking great, and is cutting, but thinks that the foot is still a "tad bit ginger" and is 2 to 3 weeks away from a being ready for a full workout.

Audio of the conversation:

http://home.kc.rr.com/mkbaslee/clayton_huddle.mp3

or

s50.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0VKFQTFXUECYE0LCDI37G6ABD7

Marco Polo
07-03-2005, 09:15 AM
Great, here we go!

mikey23545
07-03-2005, 09:26 AM
You could have saved all of us a lot of trouble by not posting this....

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 09:32 AM
I'm thinking a neg rep bomb is in order for anyone who starts a Law thread unless that thread is concerning him signing somewhere or announcing his retirement.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:33 AM
My source in the KC area also says they are still very interested in Law for the right price.

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 09:40 AM
I'm going to LMAO if the Chiefs sign Law. Yes, Tampa has more money that us, but we have enough to sign him, reguardless of what the Planet capologist think. IMO, it'll come down to how much money he wants upfront, and if Lamar is willing to shell out the bucks it'll take to land Law here.

Now, what gets me, I find it REAL odd that a group of Chief fans act like the Chiefs won't need Law. Out window to the Superbowl is closing with several of our offensive stars getting close to retirement. It's not the time to worry about having a "competitive team" in the future. It's time to worry about NOW and get a bad ass defense to go along with our bad ass offense. I could care less if the Chiefs have the 4th or 5th best team in football 3-4 years from now. I want to see them win the Superbowl, and letting a Pro-Bowl CB walk after yeilding the leagues worst defense is just plain stupid.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:43 AM
I'm going to LMAO if the Chiefs sign Law. Yes, Tampa has more money that us, but we have enough to sign him, reguardless of what the Planet capologist think. IMO, it'll come down to how much money he wants upfront, and if Lamar is willing to shell out the bucks it'll take to land Law here.

Now, what gets me, I find it REAL odd that a group of Chief fans act like the Chiefs won't need Law. Out window to the Superbowl is closing with several of our offensive stars getting close to retirement. It's not the time to worry about having a "competitive team" in the future. It's time to worry about NOW and get a bad ass defense to go along with our bad ass offense. I could care less if the Chiefs have the 4th or 5th best team in football 3-4 years from now. I want to see them win the Superbowl, and letting a Pro-Bowl CB walk after yeilding the leagues worst defense is just plain stupid.

I would love to have Ty Law as well. But I am concerned about his injury. Anyone can get out there and run around in shorts and T-Shirts. Sly Morris could do that with the best of them. But how is that foot going to hold up when the pads go on?

I would hate to see KC shell out big bucks for a guy who may end up being a shell of his former self.

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 09:45 AM
If we have 3.5 million available cap space (now I'm not sure if that includes the rookie cap or not) ... Carl ought to get Law signed.... there are creative ways to get the job done. Yeah, I know it will not be kind to our next year's cap but this is the year we should be going all out for!!! Sure, all those O players maybe be back next year; sure, the young D player may develop into studs by next year; but ....... one think most of us know is that there is an excellent opportunity for this coming year. A proven CB like Law would go a long way to getting us there.

Now ... I hear your whinning about not another Law thread ... I think it is 99% we do not sign him. But, with 1% I can hold out hope until he retires, or signs elsewhere.

But, I do want us to go all out for this year!!!

BigMeatballDave
07-03-2005, 09:45 AM
I didn't realize we had that much cap space...

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 09:46 AM
Very few people have said we don't need and/or want him. Hell, the price seems to be going down on him every day. If he signs cheap it will be for one year. He's convinced he's still the top CB in the league and wants to be paid like it.

The question will become if he decides to "prove" to the Pats he was a major part of their dynasty. If he gets that wrapped around his head he'll sign in KC. If he keeps his head wrapped in $$$, I think he'll be a Jag.

Coogs
07-03-2005, 09:46 AM
I'm going to LMAO if the Chiefs sign Law. Yes, Tampa has more money that us, but we have enough to sign him, reguardless of what the Planet capologist think. IMO, it'll come down to how much money he wants upfront, and if Lamar is willing to shell out the bucks it'll take to land Law here.

Now, what gets me, I find it REAL odd that a group of Chief fans act like the Chiefs won't need Law. Out window to the Superbowl is closing with several of our offensive stars getting close to retirement. It's not the time to worry about having a "competitive team" in the future. It's time to worry about NOW and get a bad ass defense to go along with our bad ass offense. I could care less if the Chiefs have the 4th or 5th best team in football 3-4 years from now. I want to see them win the Superbowl, and letting a Pro-Bowl CB walk after yeilding the leagues worst defense is just plain stupid.

:clap: :clap: :clap:


And TRR, who said that right price had to be cheap. At least that is what I am assuming you are inferring. It could be a two part signing bonus or something along those lines.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:49 AM
:clap: :clap: :clap:


And TRR, who said that right price had to be cheap. At least that is what I am assuming you are inferring. It could be a two part signing bonus or something along those lines.

The price will still have to be cheap for KC to sign Law. I don't think they will sign Law for anything more than veterans minimum. However, I could be wrong.

If KC throws a big deal at Law, I'm afraid they will regret it.

Coogs
07-03-2005, 09:50 AM
He's convinced he's still the top CB in the league

That alone makes me want to get this guy. We need guys on the defense that think they are the best in the NFL. Not just guys who hope they make the team on one of the worst defenses in the NLF.

Coogs
07-03-2005, 09:52 AM
The price will still have to be cheap for KC to sign Law. I don't think they will sign Law for anything more than veterans minimum. However, I could be wrong.

If KC throws a big deal at Law, I'm afraid they will regret it.

And I am afraid they will regret it if they don't. Visions of McCleon holding down the fort opposite of Surtain does nothing for me.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:53 AM
That alone makes me want to get this guy. We need guys on the defense that think they are the best in the NFL. Not just guys who hope they make the team on one of the worst defenses in the NLF.


We already have that guy in Pat Surtain.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:53 AM
And I am afraid they will regret it if they don't. Visions of McCleon holding down the fort opposite of Surtain does nothing for me.

I don't have any visions of McCleon holding down the fort. I am very comfortable with Ashley Ambrose starting opposite Surtain.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 09:54 AM
We already have that guy in Pat Surtain.
...and Sammy Knight and Kendrell Bell.

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 09:54 AM
I didn't realize we had that much cap space...

Me neither! That is surprising!! Reading that raises my hopes a tad. I had totally written him off after the recent signing. CP can use the 3.5 with a big signing bonus and make it happen.

I suspect they are still concerned about his foot??? Oh, and YES, C.P. is trying to get him as cheap as possible.

I like the sound of the best D.B.s in the NFL!!!!! Mix in a greatly improved LBer corps. And hopefully ... allow the DL to rise above 04 performances and we have a great cake in the oven!!! Making it hot on opposing O. Wouldn't that be fun to watch week after week.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 09:55 AM
I don't have any visions of McCleon holding down the fort. I am very comfortable with Ashley Ambrose starting opposite Surtain.
Ambrose would have been a starter last year if the coaches hadn't been hell-bent on a youth movement.

bringbackmarty
07-03-2005, 09:55 AM
the bottom line is carl has a hard on for law, and we just might get him.

Coogs
07-03-2005, 09:55 AM
Plus, if Shields, Roaf, and some of the other older guys retire next season as has been hinted, wouldn't that cap space be available next year if a two part signing bonus is structured in this contract?

Coogs
07-03-2005, 09:57 AM
We already have that guy in Pat Surtain.

So Surtain stops guys like Moss. Meanwhile, Porter has a career day on the other side of the field...

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:57 AM
Plus, if Shields, Roaf, and some of the other older guys retire next season as has been hinted, wouldn't that cap space be available next year if a two part signing bonus is structured in this contract?

You can always find the room. The problem is Law wants to be payed like Pat Surtain. Do you really think Law is worth that much coming off a major injury?

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 09:58 AM
I would love to have Ty Law as well. But I am concerned about his injury. Anyone can get out there and run around in shorts and T-Shirts. Sly Morris could do that with the best of them. But how is that foot going to hold up when the pads go on?

I would hate to see KC shell out big bucks for a guy who may end up being a shell of his former self.


And I'de hate even worse to watch Law play like his former self while teams are picking us to pieces through the air (expecially during Warfields suspension). If we had a healthy Law and Surtain starting and Warfield playing nickle, it's going to force opponents to play a one dimensional offense. And all of us know what Gun can do to a one dimensional offense (see Atlanta game last year). If we have unused cap space left going into this season, while a guys available that has the potential to be a playmaker, SPEND THE DAMN MONEY.

TRR
07-03-2005, 09:58 AM
So Surtain stops guys like Moss. Meanwhile, Porter has a career day on the other side of the field...

Pure speculation. Ambrose has been a solid CB in the league for years and in my opinion, is on the same level as Eric Warfield.

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 10:00 AM
And I am afraid they will regret it if they don't. Visions of McCleon holding down the fort opposite of Surtain does nothing for me.

Correct!!! And if they do sign him and he doesn't play to expectations ... what will we lose? Cap room for next year? So what!!!! It's not like we have not struck out with players in the past. At least he has a lot more potential upside than most others we have signed in recent years.

If we have not chance at him I'll shut my mouth. But, if we have a shot and C.P. blows it then ........................

mikey23545
07-03-2005, 10:01 AM
And I'de hate even worse to watch Law play like his former self while teams are picking us to pieces through the air (expecially during Warfields suspension). If we had a healthy Law and Surtain starting and Warfield playing nickle, it's going to force opponents to play a one dimensional offense. And all of us know what Gun can do to a one dimensional offense (see Atlanta game last year). If we have unused cap space left going into this season, while a guys available that has the potential to be a playmaker, SPEND THE DAMN MONEY.

Awful easy to spend someone elses money on risky investments, huh?

Coogs
07-03-2005, 10:02 AM
Ambrose would have been a starter last year if the coaches hadn't been hell-bent on a youth movement.

Something about that statement does not make me feel any better about AA. I'm just lukewarm on AA at best. I saw a couple of his interceptions last year on TV this weekend. There were no offensive players anywhere around him. Just very crappy throws by the QB's/ blown routes by the WR's.

Coogs
07-03-2005, 10:05 AM
You can always find the room. The problem is Law wants to be payed like Pat Surtain. Do you really think Law is worth that much coming off a major injury?

This year is it for the offense as we know it. Yes, I think Law is worth it.

TRR
07-03-2005, 10:07 AM
This year is it for the offense as we know it. Yes, I think Law is worth it.

Fans and media have been saying that for the last couple of seasons about the offense.

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:09 AM
Awful easy to spend someone elses money on risky investments, huh?


That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 10:10 AM
This year is it for the offense as we know it. Yes, I think Law is worth it.

Again, I agree with you on both statements! Yes, a healthy Law is worth the price. Not only for this year but for the next few years. I mean ... if we sign him then we can have him for the next few years.

I also agree about a healthy Law playing elsewhere would be a shame.

I also agree with someone above ... we need some more "I'm the best CB in the NFL" attitude on D.

If we have any chance at signing him ... CP should go all out to get into Red & Gold!!!

Coogs
07-03-2005, 10:12 AM
Fans and media have been saying that for the last couple of seasons about the offense.

I saw Gonzo on the local sports a few nights ago. Said this is Shields last year. Said it could be the same for Roaf. Said Green, Holmes, and himself are getting up there too. Said if it is going to happen, it has to be now.

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 10:13 AM
That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".

I will not use the language that you used but I agree with you. I saw our only 2 SB appearances. It was fantastic!!! But, been way too long since we have been there.

And, yes ... the Chiefs can complain about a less than up to date stadium but the truth is Lamar has made a good profit on the backs of the fans the last several years. It is time he spent the money to put a winner on the field not just in the cash register!!!!

Coogs
07-03-2005, 10:14 AM
That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".


:clap: :clap: :clap:

TRR
07-03-2005, 10:15 AM
I saw Gonzo on the local sports a few nights ago. Said this is Shields last year. Said it could be the same for Roaf. Said Green, Holmes, and himself are getting up there too. Said if it is going to happen, it has to be now.

Green, Gonzalez and Holmes will all be here next season IMO. I believe Roaf will play next year as well. He told Vermeil he wanted to play another 3 seasons. With Welbourn waiting in the wings, I'm not that worried about Shields retiring....

I would love to have Law as well. I just don't think he is worth Surtain money.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:16 AM
I'm thinking a neg rep bomb is in order for anyone who starts a Law thread unless that thread is concerning him signing somewhere or announcing his retirement.
I'm in. Let me know when we start the assault. I'm so sick and f*cking tired of all these bullshit Laws threads I just want to reach through the screen and choke the shit out each and every thread starter.

Have a nice day everyone. :)

Brock
07-03-2005, 10:18 AM
That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".

It's beyond me how anybody can find anything to bitch about after the offseason the Chiefs had this year. :rolleyes:

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:24 AM
I'm in. Let me know when we start the assault. I'm so sick and f*cking tired of all these bullshit Laws threads I just want to reach through the screen and choke the shit out each and every thread starter.

Have a nice day everyone. :)

Even though I didn't start the thread, start with me if it helps your lil' ego. I could care less about rep, and would much rather read a post about the Chiefs, rather than 85% of the front page loaded with personal BS that I don't care about. If you don't want to talk about the handful of Chief topics on the front page, then you have plenty of other options to discuss. I'm interested in the possibility of bringing in a Pro-Bowler on defense. If you don't want to read it, you have plenty of other non-football topics to choose from.

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:27 AM
It's beyond me how anybody can find anything to bitch about after the offseason the Chiefs had this year. :rolleyes:

Because I know this could very well be the end of our offensive machine. Our defense was horrible last year, and I'de love nothing more than to bring in a guy with the potential to be Probowler opposite Surtain. If we have cap space left after last season, use it on every defensive upgrade possible befor the season starts.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:27 AM
Even though I didn't start the thread, start with me if it helps your lil' ego. I could care less about rep, and would much rather read a post about the Chiefs, rather than 85% of the front page loaded with personal BS that I don't care about. If you don't want to talk about the handful of Chief topics on the front page, then you have plenty of other options to discuss. I'm interested in the possibility of bringing in a Pro-Bowler on defense. If you don't want to read it, you have plenty of other non-football topics to choose from.
Consider yourself signed up. :fire:

Seriously, all this talk of Law coming here is nothing more than that. Talk. The guy has already publicly stated he wont play here because we wont pay him enough. This horse is dead and no matter how much you want to beat it with a stick, it will not get up and run.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:28 AM
Even though I didn't start the thread, start with me if it helps your lil' ego. I could care less about rep, and would much rather read a post about the Chiefs, rather than 85% of the front page loaded with personal BS that I don't care about. If you don't want to talk about the handful of Chief topics on the front page, then you have plenty of other options to discuss. I'm interested in the possibility of bringing in a Pro-Bowler on defense. If you don't want to read it, you have plenty of other non-football topics to choose from.
Why must people constantly introduce reason when I get a perfectly good rant going? Damn noobs. :shake:

Brock
07-03-2005, 10:29 AM
Consider yourself signed up. :fire:

Seriously, all this talk of Law coming here is nothing more than that. Talk. The guy has already publicly stated he wont play here because we wont pay him enough. This horse is dead and no matter how much you want to beat it with a stick, it will not get up and run.

That's the bottom line. Overspending on a cornerback with a FOOT injury would be stupid anyway.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:30 AM
Why must people constantly introduce reason when I get a perfectly good rant going? Damn noobs. :shake:
It's only considered good reason if there's truly something ti talk about. In this case, there isn't. Keep your trigger finger warmed up, my brother. :D

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:31 AM
Consider yourself signed up. :fire:

Seriously, all this talk of Law coming here is nothing more than that. Talk. The guy has already publicly stated he wont play here because we wont pay him enough. This horse is dead and no matter how much you want to beat it with a stick, it will not get up and run.

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:31 AM
Why must people constantly introduce reason when I get a perfectly good rant going? Damn noobs. :shake:


Noob???? Yeah...whatever. I was talking to half these people befor the Planet even existed in the KC Star boards.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:31 AM
That's the bottom line. Overspending on a cornerback with a FOOT injury would be stupid anyway.
Exactly. The money grubbing piece of damaged goods has already said he won't play here. END OF STORY!

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:33 AM
Exactly. The money grubbing piece of damaged goods has already said he won't play here. END OF STORY!


For the previous contract offer.... Yet, the front office still stays in touch with his agent....I wonder why? :hmmm:

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:34 AM
Noob???? Yeah...whatever. I was talking to half these people befor the Planet even existed in the KC Star boards.
Were your Ty Law threads the reason they left?

TRR
07-03-2005, 10:34 AM
Why must people constantly introduce reason when I get a perfectly good rant going? Damn noobs. :shake:

How do you figure he is a noob? He's been posting for 3 more years on this board than you.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:34 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=44168&stc=1
ROFL

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/8610/deadhorse7fl.gifhttp://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3603/dead20horse5bn.gifhttp://img295.imageshack.us/img295/159/deadhorse23ti.gif

:D

JimNasium
07-03-2005, 10:35 AM
I'm going to LMAO if the Chiefs sign Law. Yes, Tampa has more money that us, but we have enough to sign him, reguardless of what the Planet capologist think. IMO, it'll come down to how much money he wants upfront, and if Lamar is willing to shell out the bucks it'll take to land Law here.

I hereby nominate this to become an official part of the Planet lexicon.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:35 AM
How do you figure he is a noob? He's been posting for 3 more years on this board than you.
I believe noobness is a state of mind, not a length of time. Believing that Law will sign is a sure sign of noobness in my book.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:35 AM
For the previous contract offer.... Yet, the front office still stays in touch with his agent....I wonder why? :hmmm:
3 words. Veteran league minimum. :)

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:38 AM
I hereby nominate this to become an official part of the Planet lexicon.
ROFL

Great, now I have another word I have to learn to misspell.

<strike>Regardless</strike> Reguardless.

Damnit Jim! :cuss:

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Did I start this Ty law thread? Have I started ANY of the Ty Law threads? Were you around when the KC Star board was the place that alot of the fine people here discussed Chiefs football? If the answer to all of the above questions was no....Then STFU

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 10:41 AM
Were your Ty Law threads the reason they left?

No!!!! The Star closed the Forum down!!! And, replaced it with the tame junk they have over there now.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 10:41 AM
Did I start this Ty law thread? Have I started ANY of the Ty Law threads? Were you around when the KC Star board was the place that alot of the fine people here discussed Chiefs football? If the answer to all of the avove questions was no....Then STFU
Uh oh. Look out Simplex. He's broken out the internet tough guy talk. :p

Come on guys. Can't we all just get along?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/RKPIC300.jpg

Probably not. :D

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Did I start this Ty law thread? Have I started ANY of the Ty Law threads? Were you around when the KC Star board was the place that alot of the fine people here discussed Chiefs football? If the answer to all of the above questions was no....Then STFU

May I ask you a question? What size gun do you have to the heads of those complaining about a Ty Law thread?

If not, then why are they still reading????

I don't complain about all the useless threads on the front page. I just simply skip them.

Chiefaholic
07-03-2005, 10:44 AM
Re: KC Star

I havn't read their forum in months, and that is just because the Planet was down that day. Just because i don't post as often as some of you doesn't make me a "noob" to the Planet. I log on every day and at the very least read the handful of Chief related topics. If I have time to post to a topic I'm interested in, I do. But, I rarely waste my time posting in the non-football related topics.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-03-2005, 10:46 AM
Chiefs have around 3.5 million in cap space, rookie salary pool $3,200,348. Coincidence? doubtful

finaly got it to load, that 3.5 is before the rookies are signed

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:48 AM
Re: KC Star

I havn't read their forum in months, and that is just because the Planet was down that day. Just because i don't post as often as some of you doesn't make me a "noob" to the Planet. I log on every day and at the very least read the handful of Chief related topics. If I have time to post to a topic I'm interested in, I do. But, I rarely waste my time posting in the non-football related topics.
You may not have read all the "noob" vs "elder" threads recently. I was poking a little fun, I didn't mean to offend you.

JimNasium
07-03-2005, 10:57 AM
Re: KC Star

I havn't read their forum in months, and that is just because the Planet was down that day. Just because i don't post as often as some of you doesn't make me a "noob" to the Planet. I log on every day and at the very least read the handful of Chief related topics. If I have time to post to a topic I'm interested in, I do. But, I rarely waste my time posting in the non-football related topics.
I get paid to post.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 10:59 AM
I get paid to post.
The person writing that check is getting screwed.








;)

JimNasium
07-03-2005, 11:02 AM
The person writing that check is getting screwed.








;)
Pink writes the checks.

Toad
07-03-2005, 11:19 AM
Call me a NOOB or give me neg rep all you wish, but I like the potential in siging Law.

Assuming his value keeps dropping and the Chiefs offered a heavily incentified contract- we pay only on his performance. The incentives take the risk out. If his value keeps dropping, then he will come back to us.

Another thought- Is Warfield's potential suspension appealable? If so, then we could start EW the first few weeks while the appeal buys time and Law builds his health. Then, let Law step in.

Reaper16
07-03-2005, 11:23 AM
Chiefs have around 3.5 million in cap space, rookie salary pool $3,200,348. Coincidence? doubtful

finaly got it to load, that 3.5 is before the rookies are signed

http://www.stunicholls.myby.co.uk/menu/win.gif

Manila-Chief
07-03-2005, 11:32 AM
Call me a NOOB or give me neg rep all you wish, but I like the potential in siging Law.

Assuming his value keeps dropping and the Chiefs offered a heavily incentified contract- we pay only on his performance. The incentives take the risk out. If his value keeps dropping, then he will come back to us.

Another thought- Is Warfield's potential suspension appealable? If so, then we could start EW the first few weeks while the appeal buys time and Law builds his health. Then, let Law step in.

I'd certainly go for an incentive linked contract if I were C.P. If Law is healthy he will make his money. If not we lose nothing.

I think C.P. is still interested but is trying to get him as cheap as he can. Why else would they be checking on him each week. I'm sure it is not just a social call.

Now, I agree with many of you guys ... I think it is 99% we don't sign him. But, this is a football thread. What is the difference of discussing Law as opposed to the thread of guessing how many games we will win? Seems to me it is the same banana with a different flavor. Maybe Seniorita vs. a Lakatan .... one is sweeter than the other.

CoMoChief
07-03-2005, 12:23 PM
I thought we only had around the region of 900K of cap space left.

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:29 PM
I'm in. Let me know when we start the assault. I'm so sick and f*cking tired of all these bullshit Laws threads I just want to reach through the screen and choke the shit out each and every thread starter.

Have a nice day everyone. :)jeez, you're starting to sound like skip... :eek: :eek: :eek:

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:31 PM
It's beyond me how anybody can find anything to bitch about after the offseason the Chiefs had this year. :rolleyes:well, carl did pretty good, but...

he didn't sign anybody to replace hicks, sims, or mitchell... :p :p :p

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:33 PM
Even though I didn't start the thread, start with me if it helps your lil' ego. I could care less about rep, and would much rather read a post about the Chiefs, rather than 85% of the front page loaded with personal BS that I don't care about. If you don't want to talk about the handful of Chief topics on the front page, then you have plenty of other options to discuss. I'm interested in the possibility of bringing in a Pro-Bowler on defense. If you don't want to read it, you have plenty of other non-football topics to choose from.oh, be quiet n00b... http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:35 PM
Noob???? Yeah...whatever. I was talking to half these people befor the Planet even existed in the KC Star boards.see?

only half... http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/tongueout.gif

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:37 PM
How do you figure he is a noob? He's been posting for 3 more years on this board than you.see?

only three more years... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:39 PM
I hereby nominate this to become an official part of the Planet lexicon.hmmmm... let's see....

re=again + guard=watch over + less=without, none

so, noone to watch over me, again?

yeah, i second...

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:42 PM
May I ask you a question? What size gun do you have to the heads of those complaining about a Ty Law thread?

If not, then why are they still reading????

I don't complain about all the useless threads on the front page. I just simply skip them.bah, where's the fun in that? :shrug: ROFL :D

mlyonsd
07-03-2005, 12:43 PM
We won't sign Law and you can take that to the bank.

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:46 PM
I'd certainly go for an incentive linked contract if I were C.P. If Law is healthy he will make his money. If not we lose nothing.

I think C.P. is still interested but is trying to get him as cheap as he can. Why else would they be checking on him each week. I'm sure it is not just a social call.

Now, I agree with many of you guys ... I think it is 99% we don't sign him. But, this is a football thread. What is the difference of discussing Law as opposed to the thread of guessing how many games we will win? Seems to me it is the same banana with a different flavor. Maybe Seniorita vs. a Lakatan .... one is sweeter than the other.banana?

you're talking about bananas?

that's even worse than a ty law thread!! :p :p :p


psssst... some of us are kidding you...

go bowe
07-03-2005, 12:48 PM
We won't sign Law and you can take that to the bank.pshaw...

another n00b speaks up... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

unlurking
07-03-2005, 12:49 PM
Chiefs have around 3.5 million in cap space, rookie salary pool $3,200,348. Coincidence? doubtful

finaly got it to load, that 3.5 is before the rookies are signed
Thank you. The one piece of information I continued past page one of this thread for.

CHIEF4EVER
07-03-2005, 12:52 PM
hmmmm... let's see....

re=again + guard=watch over + less=without, none

so, noone to watch over me, again?

yeah, i second...

You spelled guard wrong. Get with the program, it is spelled g a u r d. Don't believe me? Look it up in the Lexicon.....:)

mlyonsd
07-03-2005, 01:01 PM
pshaw...

another n00b speaks up... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A healthy Law added to Surtain and our new LB's is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much for a Chief fan that lived through the last 35 years to hope for.

FRCDFED
07-03-2005, 01:55 PM
An incentive laden contract would be ideal and it just might be plausible with Law's attitude. Challenge him to live up to his statement that he will be the best CB in the NFL next season.

After that it is real simple, if he is then pay him like he is!! If not then he is paid commensurate with his performance.

Either way he is motivated and seems like someone who would like the challenge of backing up their words while playing for a contender.

Could you imagine if our defense was good enough to give our offense one or two more opportunities to score per game than the last couple of seasons. What a sight that would be!!!

milkman
07-03-2005, 02:21 PM
And I'de hate even worse to watch Law play like his former self while teams are picking us to pieces through the air (expecially during Warfields suspension). If we had a healthy Law and Surtain starting and Warfield playing nickle, it's going to force opponents to play a one dimensional offense. And all of us know what Gun can do to a one dimensional offense (see Atlanta game last year). If we have unused cap space left going into this season, while a guys available that has the potential to be a playmaker, SPEND THE DAMN MONEY.

I'm really kind of ambivalent about Law right now.
I have difficulty believing that the Chiefs will sign him.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Carl does bring Law in, I just don't think that putting Warfield at nickel is a very good idea.

He struggled for 3 years in Spinner's scheme because he wasn't able to line up at the LOS and man up on the receivers.

I was one of the few that defended him in those years, because I recognized that Spinner didn't utilize his strengths.

Putting him at nickel will put him in a position that again exposes his weakness, and he'll revert back to the "Toast" that everyone labeled him.

On the other hand, McPassOn played well in Spinner's scheme, and is much better suited for the nickel than Warfield.

IMO, if Law were brought in, Warfield becomes an expensive benchwarmer by midseason.
That, or he is really crisp by seasons end.

Simplex3
07-03-2005, 02:27 PM
I'm really kind of ambivalent about Law right now.
I have difficulty believing that the Chiefs will sign him.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Carl does bring Law in, I just don't think that putting Warfield at nickel is a very good idea.

He struggled for 3 years in Spinner's scheme because he wasn't able to line up at the LOS and man up on the receivers.

I was one of the few that defended him in those years, because I recognized that Spinner didn't utilize his strengths.

Putting him at nickel will put him in a position that again exposes his weakness, and he'll revert back to the "Toast" that everyone labeled him.

On the other hand, McPassOn played well in Spinner's scheme, and is much better suited for the nickel than Warfield.

IMO, if Law were brought in, Warfield becomes an expensive benchwarmer by midseason.
That, or he is really crisp by seasons end.
Nice analysis. I'd bet $10 if they sign Law AND he's healthy enough to start opposite Surtain that Ambrose takes that nickle spot. I won't even be the least bit suprised if Ambrose takes Warfield's job if we don't get Law.

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:31 PM
I think the Chiefs secondary is fine. Patrick Surtain should be decent, and Ashley Ambrose will do OK. I think Warfield will come back a new man and record 14 INT's in 12 games. He will have 70 tackles and a couple of sacks too. You heard it here first.

Reaper16
07-03-2005, 02:31 PM
Nice analysis. I'd bet $10 if they sign Law AND he's healthy enough to start opposite Surtain that Ambrose takes that nickle spot. I won't even be the least bit suprised if Ambrose takes Warfield's job if we don't get Law.

Considering Warfield makes over 3 million in salary, that's not a bad scenario at all. :hmmm:

milkman
07-03-2005, 02:36 PM
I think the Chiefs secondary is fine. Patrick Surtain should be decent, and Ashley Ambrose will do OK. I think Warfield will come back a new man and record 14 INT's in 12 games. He will have 70 tackles and a couple of sacks too. You heard it here first.

ROFL

That's making a splash with your first post.
Talk about unrealistic hopes!

Welcome aboard.

Don't take the soon to come bashing too hard.

milkman
07-03-2005, 02:41 PM
Nice analysis. I'd bet $10 if they sign Law AND he's healthy enough to start opposite Surtain that Ambrose takes that nickle spot. I won't even be the least bit suprised if Ambrose takes Warfield's job if we don't get Law.

I don't know.
From what I've seen of Ambrose, he, like Warfield, struggles when he lines up off the line.
Despite his size, he's much better in physical man up coverage.

And because he has lost a step, I don't think he can take Warfield's job as the #2 corner, and I also see McPassOn as a better nickel than him.

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:42 PM
Bull Crap

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:42 PM
What about Warfield, he's going to be a Pro-Bowler.

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Who do you guys think are the best Chiefs defensive backs?

1. Warfield
2. McCleon
3. Wesley
4. Surtain
5. Woods
6. battle

Mr. Laz
07-03-2005, 02:47 PM
The guy has already publicly stated he wont play here because we wont pay him enough.
bull ... you just making crap up


he never said he wouldn't play here

he never said we wouldn't pay him


HE SAID that he turned down our original contract offer because it wasn't structured the way he wanted it.... nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Laz
07-03-2005, 02:47 PM
What about Warfield, he's going to be a Pro-Bowler.

since when? :shrug:

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Since this year.

KansasCityChiefs
07-03-2005, 02:50 PM
14 INT's in 12 games, watch.

Reaper16
07-03-2005, 02:52 PM
Who do you guys think are the best Chiefs defensive backs?

1. Warfield
2. McCleon
3. Wesley
4. Surtain
5. Woods
6. battle

Joke account. You had us fooled for a couple of posts; good job.

Mr. Laz
07-03-2005, 03:34 PM
14 INT's in 12 games, watch.
hopefully ...

maybe more work and less partying will help him improve

Rausch
07-03-2005, 03:36 PM
hopefully ...

maybe more work and less partying will help him improve

I'm still wondering about the suspension.

Ok, lets say he misses the 4 games most suspect, that's 1/4th the season.

Does that 1/4th have to be paid to him? He just lose the game checks? And does the team get to take that off the cap and spend it or does it still count?

milkman
07-03-2005, 05:15 PM
I'm really kind of ambivalent about Law right now.
I have difficulty believing that the Chiefs will sign him.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Carl does bring Law in, I just don't think that putting Warfield at nickel is a very good idea.

He struggled for 3 years in Spinner's scheme because he wasn't able to line up at the LOS and man up on the receivers.

I was one of the few that defended him in those years, because I recognized that Spinner didn't utilize his strengths.

Putting him at nickel will put him in a position that again exposes his weakness, and he'll revert back to the "Toast" that everyone labeled him.

On the other hand, McPassOn played well in Spinner's scheme, and is much better suited for the nickel than Warfield.

IMO, if Law were brought in, Warfield becomes an expensive benchwarmer by midseason.
That, or he is really crisp by seasons end.

Something I hadn't thought of earlier.

Again, only for the sake of argument, if Law joins our secondary, he is more versatile than Warfield.
He excels in any scheme.
He can man up and punch the receiver in the mouth off the line, or give the receiver space and still make a play on the ball.

In a base defense, Surtain and Law are your 2 corners.

In nickel packages, you could line up Warfield on the receiver at the line with Law playing the slot.

McPassOn would be the dime.

We would have the best secondary in the league, hands down.

But it's all only a pipe dream.

Crush
07-03-2005, 05:39 PM
...and I want pancakes, but we can't have everything we want.

chief4life
07-03-2005, 05:52 PM
I think the Chiefs secondary is fine. Patrick Surtain should be decent, and Ashley Ambrose will do OK. I think Warfield will come back a new man and record 14 INT's in 12 games. He will have 70 tackles and a couple of sacks too. You heard it here first.

Ok when you said Patrick Surtain should be decent I had to laugh. You just think he is decent that is too funny. Someone needs to wake you up noob and make you realize Patrick Surtain is a stud. And he is going to kick ass. He is a top 5 corner that is a hell of alot better than decent. Just my 2 cents. And if we can get Ty Law still and we dont break the bank. You do it. Damn i am pumped up for football. Start already damnit

Oh and whatever you are smokin give me some because Warfield is not going to get 14 ints ROFL

milkman
07-03-2005, 06:11 PM
Ok when you said Patrick Surtain should be decent I had to laugh. You just think he is decent that is too funny. Someone needs to wake you up noob and make you realize Patrick Surtain is a stud. And he is going to kick ass. He is a top 5 corner that is a hell of alot better than decent. Just my 2 cents. And if we can get Ty Law still and we dont break the bank. You do it. Damn i am pumped up for football. Start already damnit

Oh and whatever you are smokin give me some because Warfield is not going to get 14 ints ROFL

I wonder if he/she realizes that 14 is the record for a season?

Reaper16
07-03-2005, 06:27 PM
Ok when you said Patrick Surtain should be decent I had to laugh. You just think he is decent that is too funny. Someone needs to wake you up noob and make you realize Patrick Surtain is a stud. And he is going to kick ass. He is a top 5 corner that is a hell of alot better than decent. Just my 2 cents. And if we can get Ty Law still and we dont break the bank. You do it. Damn i am pumped up for football. Start already damnit

Oh and whatever you are smokin give me some because Warfield is not going to get 14 ints ROFL

It's a joke account! Don't be fooled! It was created today.

arrowhead20
07-03-2005, 06:39 PM
If he signs he signs, i personally will chalk this one up as
our insertion as the favorite fo the the 'ship.
thats my opinion.
but i will still push the positive energy Law's way in hopes of signing him.
in my friend and mine's case, it worked for the drafting of DERRICK JOHNSON.
he was a long shot to be drafted by us and we kept our hopes up and fingers crossed up until the 15th pick and it happened.
so ive got to keep my hope alive

Wile_E_Coyote
07-03-2005, 06:49 PM
with Jake Plummer & Kerry Collins for four games there would be no INT bonus in Law's contract

andoman
07-03-2005, 07:02 PM
An incentive laden contract would be ideal and it just might be plausible with Law's attitude. Challenge him to live up to his statement that he will be the best CB in the NFL next season.


I think that's a great idea, but what would the incentives be? If he plays lights out there won't be many balls thrown his way. Not much chance for picks or pass break ups and tackle opportunities only in the running game. Judgement of his performance would surely be subjective and unquantifiable.

milkman
07-03-2005, 07:04 PM
I think that's a great idea, but what would the incentives be? If he plays lights out there won't be many balls thrown his way. Not much chance for picks or pass break ups and tackle opportunities only in the running game. Judgement of his performance would surely be subjective and unquantifiable.

Games started and played would have to be the primary incentive.

andoman
07-03-2005, 07:09 PM
Games started and played would have to be the primary incentive.

You could base some incentives on that I suppose. But I don't think you have to be the best CB in the league and command top dollar just to start on the Chiefs defense.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-03-2005, 07:11 PM
I think that's a great idea, but what would the incentives be? If he plays lights out there won't be many balls thrown his way. Not much chance for picks or pass break ups and tackle opportunities only in the running game. Judgement of his performance would surely be subjective and unquantifiable.

intercepting or tackling Plummer is gong to be available for stat building

milkman
07-03-2005, 07:11 PM
You could base some incentives on that I suppose. But I don't think you have to be the best CB in the league and command top dollar just to start on the Chiefs defense.

No, but you have to be heathy enough to play.

Giving him top dollar only to have him injured and not playing is throwing money away.

4th and Long
07-03-2005, 07:12 PM
intercepting or tackling Plummer is gong to be available for stat building
That's not even fair to use as a stat. If picking of The Fake and tackling him were a sport, it would comparable clubbing a baby seal.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-03-2005, 07:15 PM
That's not even fair to use as a stat. If picking of The Fake and tackling him were a sport, it would comparable clubbing a baby seal.

bootlegging Plummer meets long arms of Law...yes like baby seal clubbing :)

milkman
07-03-2005, 07:17 PM
bootlegging Plummer meets long arms of Law...yes like baby seal clubbing :)

That'd be nice, but I'm really looking for a Plummer Bell ringing!

andoman
07-03-2005, 07:19 PM
How about making the Pro Bowl?

Wile_E_Coyote
07-03-2005, 07:19 PM
That'd be nice, but I'm really looking for a Plummer Bell ringing!

Hall, Allen, Johnson, Surtain, SCANLON



just no Hicks :(

penchief
07-03-2005, 07:52 PM
How about making the Pro Bowl?

That would be the most obvious way, IMO.

If he's all he says he is then you would think he believes he'd have an impact on the defense as a whole. Maybe we could tie some of the incentives to the overall performance of the secondary or the overall performance of the defense. Any significant improvement on defense would have to consist of improved play by both our corners. Pay him big if our pass defense improves big. After all that's what we're after. He'd get what he wants and we'd get what we need.

If the incentives were to be based on individual stats, maybe it would make sense to base it on a statistical improvement of his position compared to last year. Fewer completions, fewer yards, fewer first downs, fewer TD's, etc. Maybe the size of the bonus could be tied directly to the percentage decrease of those negative stats.

mikey23545
07-03-2005, 08:55 PM
That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".

Lamar never held a gun to your head to make you spend a dime, you retard. When someone thinking that because they spent a dollar at Walmart it makes them a member of the board of directors, they need some serious mental help.

If you don't like the fortune he's already spent this offseason, become a ****ing hockey fan.

Coogs
07-04-2005, 08:14 AM
Green, Gonzalez and Holmes will all be here next season IMO. I believe Roaf will play next year as well. He told Vermeil he wanted to play another 3 seasons. With Welbourn waiting in the wings, I'm not that worried about Shields retiring....

I would love to have Law as well. I just don't think he is worth Surtain money.

On the first part, I'm just telling ya what Gonzo said. All those guys may be here, but they ARE all starting to get up there. Look at what one extra year did for Gannon. From Super Bowl QB to Grandpa in 6 short months.

As far as the second part, I do think he is worth the money. Especially if the bonus can be structured to be on next years. We shouldn't need as many FA's then. Just a shift in power from the offense to the defense.

KCFalcon59
07-04-2005, 08:32 AM
I watched the story on sportcenter last night. It showed Law training. I know it's not pads, but he was working hard. Planting, cutting, running up and down stairs. To me that foot looks like it is doing fine. Someone will pay good jack for him. I'd wouldn't mind taking the gamble from what I saw of him.

RedNeckRaider
07-04-2005, 08:40 AM
That money was provided to Lamar by the fans that spend $80 to plant their asses in their seats, pay $20 to park their damn car, and $6 for a friggin' beer. The fans have made the man a hell of a lot money over the last several years to watch a mediocre football team. I'm 33 years old and NEVER watched the Chiefs win a Superbowl. It's about damn time Lamar gives a little back to the fans that's made his ass rich while sporting a "competitive team".

FWIW Hunt was born rich. When he bought the Texans of the AFL a reporter ask his dad what he thought about his son buying a football team that could lose a million dollars a year his dad replied "if he loses a million a year for a 144 years in a row he will be broke"

That said I have always wondered why Chief fans get pissed at Peterson or Steadman before that but always give Hunt a pass. I don't blame you for having a case of the ass. Hunt has always stopped just short of what the team needed to win it all.

I will say this, even as a rival I will admit this season it looks as if Hunt is trying to put a championship level team on the field. I hope this team breaks your heart, but he has opened the billfold this offseason and brought in alot of talent.

Chiefaholic
07-04-2005, 09:43 AM
Lamar never held a gun to your head to make you spend a dime, you retard. When someone thinking that because they spent a dollar at Walmart it makes them a member of the board of directors, they need some serious mental help.

If you don't like the fortune he's already spent this offseason, become a ****ing hockey fan.


First.....Go **** yourself!!!

Second, I'm just as big of a hockey fan as I am a Chief fan. If you don't think Lamar is obligated to spend some of the cash the fans made him, then perhaps you should be looking in the mirror when you refer to somebody as a retard. He owes it to the fans of KC that filled his stadium for years and years of mediocracy. On top of that, if he'de give the team a Superbowl defense to go along with the Superbowl offense, then perhaps he'de have an easier time getting the money he's begging from the taxpayers to refurbish his stadium.

redbrian
07-04-2005, 09:53 AM
I can see one scenario where Law may consider playing for the Chiefs at a reduced price.
What better way to showcase ones talents than on a contending team.
If Law truly believes that he one of the top talents, he signs with the Chiefs for a one year deal, proves himself on the field to be in top form and then goes for the big contract the following year.

Coogs
07-04-2005, 09:55 AM
If you don't like the fortune he's already spent this offseason, become a ****ing hockey fan.

I think most here are thrilled with the upgrades. There is also a very high profile CB sitting out there available for some team. Some posters here, including myself, would like to see him here. I want nothing left to chance in this potential SB season. There are some high quality teams in the AFC. Several of those have high octane passing games. I could care less about his health the first four games. It's the last four that really count.

And another note I heard on teh radio yesterday that I found a bit interesting. They were saying Manning had like 30 of his TD throws last season against teams with sub-par CB's. They said going against the teams in the playoffs that have top notch CB's has been a lot tougher for Manning, sans the no SB appearance for the Colts.

KChiefs1
07-04-2005, 10:00 AM
"Ty Law's saying he wants a deal in the $40 million range, claiming he turned his back on one offer that he felt would "only" guarantee him $10 million before that new team was likely to cut him. I don't think $10 million is a bad deal for a guy who's career is clearly in question and who is only reportedly at 85% speed with less than a month until training camp. But what do I know? It will be interesting to see how high the bidding goes from the 4-5 teams that appear to be interested in his services at this late date. So far, most appear interested in a high-dollar one-year deal or a more modest long-term proposal than Law desires."

milkman
07-04-2005, 10:07 AM
I think most here are thrilled with the upgrades. There is also a very high profile CB sitting out there available for some team. Some posters here, including myself, would like to see him here. I want nothing left to chance in this potential SB season. There are some high quality teams in the AFC. Several of those have high octane passing games. I could care less about his health the first four games. It's the last four that really count.

And another note I heard on teh radio yesterday that I found a bit interesting. They were saying Manning had like 30 of his TD throws last season against teams with sub-par CB's. They said going against the teams in the playoffs that have top notch CB's has been a lot tougher for Manning, sans the no SB appearance for the Colts.

Who ever it was that said this about Manning has no freakin' clue what the hell they are talking about.

The Patriots secondary was made up of rookies and scrubs when the Colts lost to them.

Manning struggles mightily against teams that play a physical D.

Even though the Pats secondary wasn't the most talented, they did what they needed to, i.e., hitting the receivers at the line, disrupting their routes, while the front 7 put consistent pressure on Manning.

If the timing in their offense is disrupted, and Manning starts to take a couple hits, he gets rattled and starts just making bad throws and bad decisions, which is why I refer to him as a pussy, and call his MVP award the Most Vaginal Player.

milkman
07-04-2005, 10:18 AM
Who ever it was that said this about Manning has no freakin' clue what the hell they are talking about.

The Patriots secondary was made up of rookies and scrubs when the Colts lost to them.

Manning struggles mightily against teams that play a physical D.

Even though the Pats secondary wasn't the most talented, they did what they needed to, i.e., hitting the receivers at the line, disrupting their routes, while the front 7 put consistent pressure on Manning.

If the timing in their offense is disrupted, and Manning starts to take a couple hits, he gets rattled and starts just making bad throws and bad decisions, which is why I refer to him as a pussy, and call his MVP award the Most Vaginal Player.

I've decided I need to expand on this a bit.

All QBs make mistakes when they get pressured.

However, using Green to illustrate the difference, or at least my perception of the difference, what Manning does is he gets gets rid of the early, so as not to take the hits.

Green, on the other hand, will hold on to the ball as long as he can, slide around in the pocket, and make his throw at the very last minute in an attempt to make a play.

Simplex3
07-04-2005, 10:41 AM
Who ever it was that said this about Manning has no freakin' clue what the hell they are talking about.

The Patriots secondary was made up of rookies and scrubs when the Colts lost to them.

Manning struggles mightily against teams that play a physical D.

Even though the Pats secondary wasn't the most talented, they did what they needed to, i.e., hitting the receivers at the line, disrupting their routes, while the front 7 put consistent pressure on Manning.

If the timing in their offense is disrupted, and Manning starts to take a couple hits, he gets rattled and starts just making bad throws and bad decisions, which is why I refer to him as a pussy, and call his MVP award the Most Vaginal Player.
Let's stand you in a field and let some 280lb guy running a 4.5 40 blindside you. I'll bet you start getting rid of it sooner, too.

Of course you discount entirely that Manning may be getting rid of it sooner because he knows the rush is going to get there sooner and he doesn't want to take the loss of yardage that comes with the sack. I've seen him wait until the last second plenty of times and still take the pop. Of course if you're Tony Dungy you would rather he throw it into the stands than take that injury. You need Manning on the field. Period.

As for Trent (remember the TrINT days?) holding it forever, let's recall the times that "holding it forever" got him sacked and pushed the Chiefs out of field goal range, into 3rd and long, etc.

As for the Pats beating the Colts, the Pats do that just like you say. They hit the receivers all over the field, including past 5 yards. The Pats are masterful at understanding the flags come out less in the post season and, to their credit, they play that for all it's worth. That's why a punch-you-in-the-face team beats a dancing-fineses team nearly every time in the playoffs.

jspchief
07-04-2005, 10:50 AM
I can see one scenario where Law may consider playing for the Chiefs at a reduced price.
What better way to showcase ones talents than on a contending team.
If Law truly believes that he one of the top talents, he signs with the Chiefs for a one year deal, proves himself on the field to be in top form and then goes for the big contract the following year.If Law wants to showcase his talents on a contending team, He'd probably look to Jacksonville before KC.

milkman
07-04-2005, 10:53 AM
Let's stand you in a field and let some 280lb guy running a 4.5 40 blindside you. I'll bet you start getting rid of it sooner, too.

Of course you discount entirely that Manning may be getting rid of it sooner because he knows the rush is going to get there sooner and he doesn't want to take the loss of yardage that comes with the sack. I've seen him wait until the last second plenty of times and still take the pop. Of course if you're Tony Dungy you would rather he throw it into the stands than take that injury. You need Manning on the field. Period.

As for Trent (remember the TrINT days?) holding it forever, let's recall the times that "holding it forever" got him sacked and pushed the Chiefs out of field goal range, into 3rd and long, etc.

As for the Pats beating the Colts, the Pats do that just like you say. They hit the receivers all over the field, including past 5 yards. The Pats are masterful at understanding the flags come out less in the post season and, to their credit, they play that for all it's worth. That's why a punch-you-in-the-face team beats a dancing-fineses team nearly every time in the playoffs.

I've seen him take some hits also, but as the game progresses, he becomes more and more gunshy.

And yes, Trent takes some bad sacks, but at least he remains tall in the pocket throughout the entire game.

It is, as I stated, about perception.
And my perception is that Manning doesn't have the courage in the pocket that Trent does.

milkman
07-04-2005, 10:58 AM
Let's stand you in a field and let some 280lb guy running a 4.5 40 blindside you. I'll bet you start getting rid of it sooner, too.

Getting hit by bigger stronger guys is nothing new to me.

When I was a kid, I didn't grow over 5' until I was in my soph year in high school, and then I only weighed a hundred pounds.

I was a hothead (more closely related to stupidity than courage, I admit), but I got my ass kicked by all the big boys because of my temper and lack of fear.

RedThat
07-04-2005, 11:25 AM
Who ever it was that said this about Manning has no freakin' clue what the hell they are talking about.

The Patriots secondary was made up of rookies and scrubs when the Colts lost to them.

Manning struggles mightily against teams that play a physical D.

Even though the Pats secondary wasn't the most talented, they did what they needed to, i.e., hitting the receivers at the line, disrupting their routes, while the front 7 put consistent pressure on Manning.

If the timing in their offense is disrupted, and Manning starts to take a couple hits, he gets rattled and starts just making bad throws and bad decisions, which is why I refer to him as a pussy, and call his MVP award the Most Vaginal Player.

your forgetting a few things here?

BAD WEATHER, and MISFORTUNE

Think about it?

Manning has never won a game in Foxboro. Foxboro for Manning is like what Arrowhead was for Elway. Both parks we're like doom dungeons for those QB's.

And, bad weather(snow) makes a big difference. Play'n in those kinda conditions is a huge disadvantage to a passing game. Don't get me wrong, the Pats I'm sure knew how to play him, but, everything else they needed like fortune all went their way as well.

Chiefaholic
07-04-2005, 12:35 PM
If Law wants to showcase his talents on a contending team, He'd probably look to Jacksonville before KC.

WOW!!!! You'de think a player the caliber of Law would drool at the thought of playing defense opposite Surtain. Imagine the numbwer of balls that'll come his way in comparison to previous seasons. The two of them could practically shut down the passing game. Thus, allowing D. Johnson and Bell to make the QB's head ring. On top of that, our offense is loaded with talent to make up for an occasional mistake or two.

If the Chiefs sign Law, I'de have to say the Chiefs are a favorite to win it all this season.

milkman
07-04-2005, 03:56 PM
your forgetting a few things here?

BAD WEATHER, and MISFORTUNE

Think about it?

Manning has never won a game in Foxboro. Foxboro for Manning is like what Arrowhead was for Elway. Both parks we're like doom dungeons for those QB's.

And, bad weather(snow) makes a big difference. Play'n in those kinda conditions is a huge disadvantage to a passing game. Don't get me wrong, the Pats I'm sure knew how to play him, but, everything else they needed like fortune all went their way as well.

Look at the game that the Chiefs played against the Colts last season.

We played aggressive, in your face defense, applying pressure on Manning and the receivers.
Disrupted their timing, and watched as Manning began to wilt under the constant pressure.

All of that in the first half.

In the second half, Gun started to back off, utilizing more of a prevent mode, which, of course gave Manning the chance to nearly lead the Colts back to victory.

The point is, in the first half, when the Chiefs were playing aggressive, physical D, Manning's effectiveness was neutralized to some extent, much the same as it is when he plays the Pats.

And the weather wasn't a factor.

And he usually struggles against Jax for exactly the same reasons.

jspchief
07-04-2005, 09:25 PM
WOW!!!! You'de think a player the caliber of Law would drool at the thought of playing defense opposite Surtain. Imagine the numbwer of balls that'll come his way in comparison to previous seasons. The two of them could practically shut down the passing game. Thus, allowing D. Johnson and Bell to make the QB's head ring. On top of that, our offense is loaded with talent to make up for an occasional mistake or two.

If the Chiefs sign Law, I'de have to say the Chiefs are a favorite to win it all this season.

Maybe he would like the chance to play opposite Surtain. But maybe he'd be concerned about the rest of the defense.

Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, I'd say Jax might be more likely to be the "contender" from his point of view. For a number of reasons.

1. They were better than us last year, and have done nothing to get worse. There's no reason to think they can't repeat what they did last year.

2. They have a better defense. KC has added a lot of pieces, but we still don't know what the puzzle will look like. Meanwhile, Jax had a very good, aggressive D, and their only weak spot was CB.

3. They play in a weaker conference. The only real competition is Indy, and they can beat Indy.

I think KC has a very good chance at being a very good team, but we need the defense to come together. Jacksonville is already a very good team, where Law could be the final tweak that makes them a great team. I just think if "I want to play for a winner" is really a factor, Jacksonville looks more like a winner than KC at this point.

But honestly, I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think it's all about the money. I also think we won't get him because of that. Personally, I won't be happy if we spend a lot of money on him unless it's a one year deal.

whoman69
07-05-2005, 10:13 AM
I didn't realize we had that much cap space...
If true, we already have enough to sign rookies with. Getting Law would be a matter of dropping some dead weight like McCleon and Woods.

RedThat
07-05-2005, 10:20 AM
If true, we already have enough to sign rookies with. Getting Law would be a matter of dropping some dead weight like McCleon and Woods.

I also like to add, we would have to restructure several contracts to clear room for him. Guys like Warfield, Green, Holmes, Shields, Roaf would all have to take pay cuts.

jspchief
07-05-2005, 10:21 AM
If true, we already have enough to sign rookies with. Getting Law would be a matter of dropping some dead weight like McCleon and Woods.Cutting Mccleon would free up anout 300k. It's hard to say what cutting Woods would do (because he has a multi tiered bonus) but chances are this early in his contract, we would lose money.

There are very few players that the Chiefs could cut and save money (out of the ones worthy of cutting). Most of the real bums are too early in their contracts, so with accelerated bonuses, they would hurt the cap.

One guy that probably could free up some money is Barber. If we can sign an injury settlement with him, it would only hit our cap for 250k this year (I think).

Wile_E_Coyote
07-05-2005, 11:16 AM
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=13

Jerome Woods:
$3,500,000 signing bonus in 2004
xx$660,000 base salary in 2004

TRR
07-05-2005, 11:20 AM
Cutting Mccleon would free up anout 300k. It's hard to say what cutting Woods would do (because he has a multi tiered bonus) but chances are this early in his contract, we would lose money.

There are very few players that the Chiefs could cut and save money (out of the ones worthy of cutting). Most of the real bums are too early in their contracts, so with accelerated bonuses, they would hurt the cap.

One guy that probably could free up some money is Barber. If we can sign an injury settlement with him, it would only hit our cap for 250k this year (I think).

There is no way I would cut McCleon to save 300k. McCleon was our most consistent CB in 2003, and he gives us great insurance.

jspchief
07-05-2005, 11:25 AM
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=13

Jerome Woods:
$3,500,000 signing bonus in 2004
xx$660,000 base salary in 2004

I'm not sure that 3.5 was all paid out in 2004. It was reported as a "multi-tiered" signing bonus, which leads me to believe it wasn't.

But for arguments sake, we'll say it was. That means if we cut him this year his remaining signing bonus will be accelerated to this year's cap. That adds up to almost 3 million. So we'll save the 865,000 in base, but owe the 2.9 mil in pro rated cap, costing us a cap hit of roughly 2 million. So instead of Woods hitting the cap for the 1.5 million that would consist of his base plus pro rated bonus, he'll hit for 2 million.

In effect, cutting Woods will consume 500k more than carrying him on the roster would.